tv [untitled] May 30, 2011 6:00pm-6:30pm PDT
>> item passes. >> would you please reads item three and four. >> chair's report and item four, executive director's report. >> i have a brief report today colleagues. this month was our leadership roundtable on the sustainable community strategy on may 5th held at the authority's offices. it was an opportunity for elected officials representing san francisco on the boards of the regional agencies to meet with management and provide feedback from the vision scenario which is an important first step in the process for developing sustainable community strategy and eventually the new regional transportation plan. i was joined for this event by commissioners scott wiener and david comps on who also represent us on the m.t.c.
we also have representatives from the mayor's office, housing and land use as well as management staff. we had a wagering of discussion about the direction of this planning effort for the bay area and had a chance to deliver a unified message. it was consist went discussns that took place at our own transportation authority board meetings. the amount of growth targeted would require major investments in transportation infrastructure and the region will have to make those commitments to san francisco. if the city is to commit to absorbing that growth and if the development of alternative development should be accompanied by discussion and how the funds are likely to be distributed to transportation projects.
in other words we signal the city's willing tons accommodate growth would be shaped by the region's willingness to reward us and other jurisdictions that do the right thing and that they should come in the form of more money to san francisco. this is a groundbreaking effort for the bay area. and i am looking to continue the policy discussion with all of you and with the regional area boards that represent other communities. the governor revised, the governor made revision of the fiscal 2011-12 state budget is now at $87 million increase in diesel fuel sales tax which goes into the state transit assistance program. a 27% increase of the amount originally estimated in the budget, translating into $31 million more for transit operators and $7.9 million for
muni operations for fiscal 2011-2012. i hope to see it translate into more frequent and reliable service. this concludes my report. >> good morning general commissioners. my report is on your desk. i have a few things that i would like to highlight. first of all, a call for projects has been released for a total of about $430 million and we already applied for money in some categories and most visible, i think, a $10 million request for the project supposed to replace some
earmarks that had to be redirected to the project but that are now in limbo because of changes in the direction of the earmarks policy instituted by congress. and there is also $1.5 million earmark request or rather grant request from the transportation community and system preservation program to continue the e.i.r. on our condition pricing study. the fhwa has not given a timeline for when the grants will be announced. but we will be watching that closely. they have given us a very good piece of positive news on the presidio parkway, an authorization for up to $592 million in private activity bonds for the project that goes to complement the request that we had made for a loan.
this is really a very strong indication about the strength of the project and the level of commitment that the federal government feels that it has with this project. i am not going to repeat the chair's announcement about the funds but i will say that we will continue to advocate in sacramento for the transportation funds and for the distribution of funds according to prop 22 that was approved by voters last november. a significant amount of projects, market street project. we had a workshop a couple of weeks ago, last week actually, that brought more than 100 members of the public. it was a first workshop on the better market sheet project and another one planned for tonight
from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. and another one tomorrow at noon. good success on the back to work program. 54% of our staff back to work. we are making progress in terms of incorporating stakeholder input to the successor to the bay view neighborhood transportation plan that the authority did last year and the main focus of contact now are the community-based organizations that have some transportation related functions and social service providers as well. we submitted a letter of comments on the document for the extension of the f-line to fort mason. pointing out the need for some more transparency and the
system impacts and especially impacts as far as muni service and so on. i just remind you that the potential future allocation of funds to support this project, which is eligible for prop k, is dependant on the full funding plan. san francisco transportation plan will have a second round call for projects in july. we have been doing outreach on this. and i just anticipate that we will be back to nujuly with more information. further progress where the two teams are exchanging ideas, looking at three different alternatives. also a significant amount of activity where we met with land development interest and talked to them about the process so far and to talk about the calculations of fair share
contributions from private sector to the projects identified. this is a good time to be doing that as the various developments move towards the agreements with the local jurisdictions. finally i would like to announce the incorporation into our staff. our engineer has been a resident of the bay area since 2008, a degree from northeastern university in boston and masters degree from uc berkeley. he joins us after an internship where he worked on the central subway. he is knowledgeable about the big dig project in boston where he worked as an engineer for eight years. now that project's reputation has been cleaned up and the project is functioning quite well he is happy to talk to
anybody about that because he used to give tours. that concludes high report. we are happy to have him with us. >> welcome to the mta. welcome. colleagues, any comments or questions? seeing none? any public comment? >> item five adopt the proposed fiscal year 2011-12 annual budget and work program. >> any discussion on this item? seeing none, public comment. public comment is closed. roll call, please. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> absent. >> aye. >> aye. >> absent. >> aye.
>> absent. >> prevails. item six. >> adopt positions on state and federal legislation. this is an action item. >> discussion? seeing none, closed. public comment? public comment is closed. take this without objection? item seven please. >> adopt alternative 2b as the locally preferred alternative for the berba buena island ramps improvement project. >> discussion? none. public comment? none. take it without objection? so moved. >> program $579,000 in san francisco safe routes to the school capital funds to the san francisco municipal transportation agency for the sunset elementary school and
apgiannini middle school project. >> take it out obligation. so moved. >> approve local project screening criteria for the regional transportation plan. this is an action item. >> any comments or discussions? >> thank you mr. chair. to the executive director in terms of item number nine, i see from the memo and the attachments, i believe three and four, that the authority received over 200 projects from the public and over 100 proposals from the implementing agencies. question to you, how are we going to fund all of these needs given our limited resources and how do we prioritize? and i am especially concerned about investing in good projects that are fiscaly responsible and provide the bang for the buck we are
looking for in terms of the dollars and supporting the long-term growth of the city as we project that. >> thank you for the question. couple of different tracks here. first of all, we are doing this as part of the regional process for generating a regional transportation plan and there are certain methodologies we have to follow in order to stay consistent with the region. but those are still evolving. one of the questions that we have when we met last week is when are those rules going to real jell so we understand the type of criteria and money likely to flow through for our priorities in san francisco. it is still evolving. we are pressing for performance-based measures so that it is not just a cookie cutter based on population for
the different counties, it is really based on bang for the buck as you said. we have a lot of that here. we have the land use, the density, transit infrastructure that can support more pedestrian lifestyle. we think we can do well provided the rules are right. we have the support of all of the representatives on the regional body on. a separate track there is the san francisco transportation plan, the update of the plan in the city, that you adopt and that you bless when we get through the process. that has its own set of rules that are focused on creating not just bang for the buck but the highest leverage possible so we get state funds, regional
funds and federal funds. when the all of that is said ask done we don't have enough money to pay for all of the shigses made. not all of them are bang for the buck submissions. more things that duplicate stuff already being done and other things are advocacy but they don't have plans that exist. another set of categories need to be vetted against things like the neighborhood plans that this board already blessed and that was developed over time because we need to maintain consistens and he keep faith with the neighbors that have participated in those planning processes and come up with their own priorities to make sure that those are at least reflected in our own list and then reconcile priorities from one plan to another. not everything will make the list. it is a fairly complicated process. the best we can hope for is consistency among the city
agencies that are providing comment on this on the criteria. also transparency. when we see how far you can go down the list people will realize everybody is being treated fairly. >> i appreciate the comments and we look ford continue working with you to understand the priorities and evaluate them. it is something we very much need to do. so, thank you. >> thank you commissioner. >> thank you mr. chairman. through the chair i want to first of all, echo my sentiment
that the issue of funding is a key issue. the regional look at creating suddenable communities. i think they cannot occur or take place unless we have fund to support them. we are being asked to adopt that the principle that there should be a nexus between affordable housing and transportation. so, i certainly want the region to adopt this principle but i also think that it is important for san francisco itself to make sure that we lead by example and that we lead the way in that area. i want to know how staff believes we can invest in a way that encourages and promotes affordable housing production.
>> thanks for the question. there is a lot in that question. let me just briefly answer that one of the fundamental criteria that m.t.c. is pushing as part of this sustainable community strategy is the concept of the p.d.a., priority development area which are supposed to be areas where there is density supportive of transit and pedestrian trips and alternatives to the automobile. the entire bay area has been identifying where these p.d.a.'s are. thanks to have that we have a new acronym that we have to remember. and fundamentally a p.d.a. is an area of opportunity where there is more density and mix of the people that live there
and more of a chance that there will be a mix of users of different kinds of components of the transportation system and of course fewer single auto trips. there are local governments making stronger commitments. it is the right type of density and the right mix of people. the transportation field does not have enough money either. but that is the mechanism. you know getting the regional
agencies to recognize the local jurisdictions are making on a policy level and investment level to have affordable housing and rewarding that with transportation infrastructure. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any more questions or comments? seeing none, public comment, please. public comment is closed. we will take this without objection. >> item 10 appropriate $55,000 in pop k funds with conditions for the us 101 candlestick interchange project study report subject to the attached fiscal year cash flow distribution schedule. >> i just wanted to bring to staff's attention that i took through a couple of minutes to go through the minutes and there was interest that was expressed for having a mechanism with a greater public involvement in the
transportation projects and i would like to ask staff at this time to begin to explore, and i will help you with my office, cutting together a c.a.c. that would i would like to commit to bringing a different voice from the ones we normally hear. bring voice to a lot of the transportation needs happen negligent southeast. i would like to see a bi-county approach. i think it would bring experienced people. thank you. is that a question for staff? >> more of a statement or request. thank you. >> i think the request is clear
mr. chairman. we will be happy to work on that. >> any other comments or questions? seeing none, any public comment. public comment is closed. and director and staff will be back in touch with the commissioner cohen. without objection? good. so moved. >> number 11, introduction of new items and information items. >> any introduction of new items? seeing none, any public comment? no public comment. very good. next item, please. >> public comment. >> and one last time for public comment that had not been utilized in the previous 11. seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk. >> adjournment. >> have a good rest of the day. meeting is adjourned.
minutes? is there anyone from the public wishing to speak? public comment is closed. any comment? we move it forward without objection. ms. ching, can you call the next item? >> the 2012 annual budget and work program. >> this is cynthia fong. >> good morning, commissioners. yes or the deputy director of finance and administration. why have before you starts with the fiscal year annual budget. this budget was brought to you at the preliminary stage for the information in. they have not received any changes from last month, and i
have a short power. presentation for you to recap what we saw in the budget. as you may recall, the budget includes six different pieces. we have the tax revenue and a federal state and regional revenue, the capital expenditures operating with the service costs. this package includes four components, and the first attachment is the high-level executive version with the rigid with the comparison to fiscal year 1011. you have the annual work plan, and this breaks down into each of the five sections that the authority will indicate what we plan on working on next year.
you have a line item detail, listing all the different federal and state and regional type revenues, and this shows what we will be spending for the fiscal year. you also have a line item description, with revenues and expenditures. we have a pie chart that is here on the power point presentation. this is what we will be receiving and what we anticipate to receive in terms of revenue, and the majority of the revenues come from this, we expect 68.5% in the coming year. the next largest source of revenue -- this is the part where project, that brings in
about 20% of the revenue, amounting to $20.6 million. >> this is entirely the parkway? >> a good majority of this. >> 20 million of that is this. >> as we watch the calamity that is sacramento will not have to worry about this, because this is largely one project. >> the next largest source of income in the federal grant revenue -- this is 5.9%, with these consistent projects. . this represents about 3.8 million, as is 877,000.
on the next slide, we have a view of the different expenditures, and we also have a part indicating the amount of sales tax revenue in this program. as you can see in the first fiscal year, we have received the half year of sales tax revenue, with the all-time high received in fiscal year 2007. this was down to 68.2 million and the seed is creeping up to about $2 million. the next slide, we have the expenditures we anticipate for fiscal year 2012.
90% of the entire budget will go to the capital project expenditures, and this represents a few of the larger projects such as the central subway project, the presidio park or project, the other projects on the radio communications systems, the different street improvements and expenditures. the largest amount of expenditures for this service, we anticipate 300 million with the bond issue in 2012. we have always included the potential that issue and we anticipate using this as long as the funding agencies are in need of further projects.
we also have personal expenditures, of 3.4%, and there have been no changes to the prior year salaries, in alignment with the cost of living. we have the non-personal expenditures, of $3.2 million of the entire budget, consisting of the operating cost for rent, the legal fees, anything that is needed to maintain the front office. next i have slides for the work program, and since i have already gone through this in the last month, i would like to offer questions for any of the commissioners task,